Chambers Bay ... and so it begins

[Joe Stansell]

USGA-mandated renovation coming to Chambers Bay

"At first glance, with cranes and bulldozers parked all over the property, the upcoming changes to Chambers Bay Golf Course, site of the 2015 U.S. Open, appear massive."


Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/10/12/1861468/smoothing-out-some-rough-edges.html#ixzz1aaFq7u7B

[Joe_Tucholski]

It's interesting to me that the article makes it seem like all of the changes are to make the course easier for the pros to play their high and fly game.  It doesn't make all that much sense to me as people are always up in arms when the US Open has scores much below par.  Are these changes really necessary to prevent the embarrassment of tour pros?

[Garland Bayley]

Yes, Joe, It looks like take the quirk out to me. If they can't fly one in and hold the 13th, then they should try bouncing one in, etc.

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree in principle.

i think its beyond disgusting to spend all that money and cause all that inconvience for one week of golf in 3.5 years from now?  Seems utterly stupid.

[Mark Saltzman]

These changes are probably necessary for the US Open.  They're not necessary for regular member/guest play.  

I suspect that but-for us weird GCA-types, the majority of golfers who play the course will be reasonably happy with the changes.

[PCCraig]

Too bad...

[Sean Leary]

These changes are probably necessary for the US Open.  They're not necessary for regular member/guest play.  

I suspect that but-for us weird GCA-types, the majority of golfers who play the course will be reasonably happy with the changes.

Totally agree. I believe that the changes will make it better for everyone that actually keeps score....

[Michael George]

Mark:

This may be the first time that I disagree with one of your posts.  Generally, you are right on line, but not here.

I don't think the majority of golfers want golf courses to become more steril or more like "RTJ" courses.  The concept of a "fair" golf course is way overused and I don't think the majority of the golfing public care as much about "fairness" as they do about "fun" or "interest".. 

I recently had a group of 28 guys out to Bandon.  Only 2 of the 28 (and the 2 includes myself, which I don't proclaim to be even close to a gca expert) had any knowledge of golf course architecture.  However, the most often comment was about how much "fun" courses were to play and how interesting shot disparity was.  For instance, almost everyone in the group loved shots like the hog's back on #4 (despite many guys hitting right of it and having their ball kick 50 yards to the right) and the approach at #7 at Old Macdonald (despite having balls roll 75 yards down the fairway).  Likewise, guys liked difficult short par 4s at Pacific Dunes like #6 and #16, even though they may not be classified as "fair" by the USGA. 

Keep the quirk in the golf course and make the best players in the world learn how to navigate around it.

[Mark Saltzman]

Michael,

I'm not advocating the changes.  I'm just saying that most will not notice the changes.  Something like softening the mound behind the 13th green will go unnoticed by most.  Ditto for softening the mound short of the first green.

I'm not saying that the course should modified into some sort of RTJ tree-lined penal design.  I'm just saying that the changes that are being made really won't make that big a difference.  They'll probably make the course a bit worse for those that enjoy some quirk, but really it's not a big deal.

[Tom_Doak]

guys liked difficult short par 4s at Pacific Dunes like #6 and #16, even though they may not be classified as "fair" by the USGA. 
 

Michael:

They have already hosted a USGA Championship at Pacific Dunes, and no one saw the need to change any of the holes because of "fairness".  You'd think if the players could handle it for the Curtis Cup, the big boys could probably handle it for a U.S. Open.

To me, the interesting dynamic about the changes to Erin Hills and now Chambers Bay is that these courses have identified themselves so much with the future championship they will hold, that they are totally at the mercy of whatever the USGA suggests for changes -- and the USGA has not been bashful about suggesting changes up and down the line, at ownership's cost, to boot.  I suspect the USGA likes having this power over a championship site, compared to other courses which might not kowtow to anything they say.

[jeffwarne]

It's interesting to me that the article makes it seem like all of the changes are to make the course easier for the pros to play their high and fly game.  It doesn't make all that much sense to me as people are always up in arms when the US Open has scores much below par.  Are these changes really necessary to prevent the embarrassment of tour pros?

No Joe,
they''l protect par by changing a par 5 to a par 4 and then moving the tees up.
Kill the greens and get them really firm,   fast and bumpy, (a great combination)
There's plenty of ways to protect par once you're made course "fair"


One day they''ll pick a site and just play golf

[Michael George]

Tom:

I agree fully on how much these two sites are at the mercy of the USGA - Erin Hills even from before it was built and causing that unfortunate owner to lose the golf course.  I just hope the USGA does not abuse its power to the detriment of the general golfing public by making these courses less interesting and fun to play on a daily basis. 

It would be really interesting to get an insiders look into the changes at Oakmont and Pinehurst and the role that the USGA had in those renovations.  Certainly, the USGA was involved in both, as they likely should be for regular Open stops.  However, I have a feeling that they may have been more of the reason for the change on Oakmont - to allow for more hospitality tents at the US Open - and may have been more on the consulting end on Pinehurst - as Pinehurst was looking to make the course more unique for the travelling golfer and the USGA loves the site because it is supposedly one of the most profitable sites for the Open - they can sell tons of hospitality tents and golf at surrounding courses.

For instance - with one of your designs - if the Open were ever to be played at Pacific Dunes (which I know it will not due to many reasons), I could see them wanted to change the contours of the area short of #16 at Pacific Dunes.  However, that would kill one of the really fun shots on that golf course that I want to get back there to try time and again (which, for the record in 2 attempts, I never pulled off - I am starting to think that the landing strip behind the green is there for a reason).

[Garland Bayley]

... and the USGA has not been bashful about suggesting changes up and down the line, at ownership's cost, to boot.  ...

Changes required by the USGA, such as those being done at Chambers Bay, are paid for by the USGA.

[Garland Bayley]

... Erin Hills even from before it was built and causing that unfortunate owner to lose the golf course.  ...

The owner lost the golf course on his own. The USGA made a couple of suggestions as to what might qualify it for consideration for major championships, and the owner went nutso. Even the architects hired by the owner could not get him to stop with his unnecessary changes.

[William_G]

One day they''ll pick a site and just play golf

When?

[Ken Fry]

... and the USGA has not been bashful about suggesting changes up and down the line, at ownership's cost, to boot.  ...

Changes required by the USGA, such as those being done at Chambers Bay, are paid for by the USGA.

If this is true, is it only true for the Open or all USGA events???

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

... and the USGA has not been bashful about suggesting changes up and down the line, at ownership's cost, to boot.  ...

Changes required by the USGA, such as those being done at Chambers Bay, are paid for by the USGA.

If this is true, is it only true for the Open or all USGA events???

Ken

Or is the money just coming out of the profits the course would have made?

[Ed Brzezowski]

do they(USGA) ask for input from the original architect or just do as they deem correct? Seems a bastardization of a designers work.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Tom if you are out there thank you for signing your book for me, that was appreciated,  ed

[Joe_Tucholski]

... and the USGA has not been bashful about suggesting changes up and down the line, at ownership's cost, to boot.  ...

Changes required by the USGA, such as those being done at Chambers Bay, are paid for by the USGA.

If this is true, is it only true for the Open or all USGA events???

Ken

Or is the money just coming out of the profits the course would have made?

Ken it looks like the contract between the USGA and Chambers Bay stipulated the USGA would lease the course for the week of the open for 2.5 million dollars but that money had to be used by the course on the golf course.  So I assume these alterations are coming from the 2.5 million the USGA has paid or will pay. 
Tom I guess your statement is kind of correct as I would guess regular maintenance costs could be paid for with the 2.5 million but it would be interesting to read the 68 page contract to find out exactly what the money can and can’t be used for and what happens if there is remaining cash or not enough cash after the mandated USGA changes.

I got my information for this post here
http://www.theolympian.com/2009/10/21/v-print/1009410/some-straight-talk-about-rumor.html

If someone finds the contract I'd be interested in reading it.  As a side note the article mentions the fact that arrangements for the US Amateur are very different than the US Open.

[Steve Lang]

   not sure about why they want to fool with #1, but i can better see some of the other changes as desireable, especially #7 (though i didn't have any real problems playing it)..

this all seems planned out...

... and where is the love for tweeking a course over the years, learning by experience?

[Joel_Stewart]

Good they are using the original shaper for the course Ed Taano.

[Jim Nugent]

Ken it looks like the contract between the USGA and Chambers Bay stipulated the USGA would lease the course for the week of the open for 2.5 million dollars but that money had to be used by the course on the golf course.  So I assume these alterations are coming from the 2.5 million the USGA has paid or will pay. 
Tom I guess your statement is kind of correct as I would guess regular maintenance costs could be paid for with the 2.5 million but it would be interesting to read the 68 page contract to find out exactly what the money can and can’t be used for and what happens if there is remaining cash or not enough cash after the mandated USGA changes.

Wonder how other revenues are shared as well.  A thread from a year or so ago made it sound like CB is very much counting on a windfall from the Open to survive financially. 

Bet CB does not have to return any leftover 'rent' money. 

[Scott Weersing]

At least they didn't hire Rees to come in and make the changes!!

I think the changes to no. 1 are a good idea because approach shots can end up all the way down on the 18th fairway. But I agree that they are trying to change the course to accomodate the pros' high and soft approach shots. I think the course could have been a British Open in June, but now they will overseed the rough and flatten the greens.

I think widening the fairway on no. 7 to allow for people is a good idea as you can't have people on the right hand side of the fairway and there may not be enough room on the left. Then the people could go behind the green and follow on the left hand side of no. 8.

I hope they never hold a US Open at Bandon because they would want to change holes for fairness.

[Jerry Kluger]

They will have to build a clubhouse of some consequence to handle player needs for the Open, etc., anyone know what is planned and can they borrow money to build it in anticipation of revenues from the Open?